Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

The hunt is On.
Sponsored by
The hunt is On.
Can you track down Scotland's wildest beastie?
 
 
Friday, 5th December 2008 Change Date

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Sign In
Register

Betting magnate Stuart Wheeler loses EU Referendum fight



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 25 June 2008
By DAVID GUNN
EUROSCEPTIC millionaire Stuart Wheeler lost his High Court battle today over the Government's refusal to hold a referendum on the EU's Lisbon Treaty.
Two judges rejected his claim that he had a "legitimate expectation" that there would be a public vote.

The spreadbetting tycoon's lawyers argued that the expectation arose after Government ministers promised a referendum on the failed EU constitu
tion which the treaty replaces.

They said the evidence showed that the Constitutional Treaty – rejected by voters in France and the Netherlands in 2005 – and the Reform Treaty (the Lisbon Treaty) were one and the same, except in name.

But today Lord Justice Richards and Mr Justice Mackay dismissed his application for judicial review at the High Court in London.

Mr Wheeler, 73, says he believes the Lisbon Treaty is "dead" anyway as a result of its rejection in the referendum in Ireland, but ministers in London have refused to halt the ratification process.

The court refused Mr Wheeler permission to appeal, which his lawyers sought on the grounds of the "serious legal, constitutional and public interest issues arising in the case".

Lord Justice Richards said: "We are satisfied that an appeal has no prospect of success.

"Whilst the issues raised are interesting and important, that is outweighed by the desirability of certainty and the avoidance of unnecessary delay in this matter.

"There is no other compelling reason why an appeal should be heard."
Mr Wheeler still has the right to apply to the Court of Appeal for permission to challenge today's ruling.

Europe Minister Jim Murphy welcomed the judgment: "I am pleased that the judges have come down very clearly on the side of the Government and found that this claim 'lacks substantive merit and should be dismissed'.

"The judges have confirmed the Government's position that the Lisbon Treaty differs in both form and substance from the defunct Constitution.
"The judges have also made a number of important points about the boundaries between Parliament, Government and the courts.

"With Parliament's approval, the Government is proceeding to ratify the Lisbon Treaty, which is in our national interest and is a good treaty for the UK."



The full article contains 363 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 25 June 2008 10:06 AM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: European Union
 
1

Alan B,

25/06/2008 10:23:39
I really could not see how the government refusing to have a referendum could be seen as illegal.

In many ways it was an irrelevent distraction. We do not have a constitution that would forse government to hold referendum. Unlike ireland.

The government should have held a referendum becuase this treaty was close enough to the constitutional treaty they promise to hold a referendum over.

Alternatively brown should have just held an election and said that he would not hold a referendum and then people decide in that election.

Labour have sunk really low in their political approach.
2

subrosa,

25/06/2008 10:24:15
No surprise there then but I do admire Mr Wheeler for his tenacity. He could have been like many other wealthy people in the UK and just continued to quiet.
3

Scotish Exile,

25/06/2008 10:24:15
it is obvious why all the big political parties do not want to give the people a vote on this, because we would vote like the irish and reject this farce. But the politicians don't want to listen to the people and give us a say, b8st8rds
4

Steve_HMFC,

25/06/2008 11:17:56
Whether or not one was promised for the abandoned CT, referena are a bad way of doing politics.

Ireland shows that shameful tabloids and politicians will gladfully lie to people and exploit 'euromyths' i.e legalising abortion in ireland and putting microchips for children.


With that in mind, what are the chances that a referendum on Lisbon in the Uk would give parties like UKIP and tabloids a chance to lie about what Lisbon is really about. Given that The Sun is the most read newspaper in Britain and millions watch Big Brother, its clear that our great public isnt the most intelligent so they would easily be taken in.

France and Dutch No's in 2005 also showed that No votes are often used for different reasons; some not even related to Europe. A poll taken straight after these rejections showed 31% of French voting No because of disatisfaction with Chirac's govt/domestic politics and 25% of the Dutch were unhappy with the domestic employment situation.

Furthermore, given that the Govt are supporting the Treaty, many would use a referendum to protest about 10p tax, fuel rises, energy rises, 42 days etc etc

Labour shouldnt have promised a referendum in the first place, that is clear, but the UK is a representative democracy and a 'hands up if you want this' method is a backward way of doing things. It should only be retained for fundamental changes I.e entering the Eurozone or devolution
5

Hilary,

Edinburgh 25/06/2008 11:27:49
If anyone in the UK showed a blind bit of interest in how their own country was run, they would realsie that this is a UK problem, not an EU one.

The Irish voted beacuse of a previous challenge through the courts using the Irish constitution. As we don't have a written constitution, then it is harder to judge whether any changes actually affect it or not - which Lisbon probably didn't anyway.
6

Hilary,

Edinburgh 25/06/2008 11:29:19
EUROBAROMETER SURVEY: IRISH PEOPLE say that EU membership has benefited the country more than citizens of any other EU state and are among the strongest supporters of the Union, a new survey shows.

But there is growing pessimism about the state of the economy with two-thirds of people saying they feel the employment situation will worsen during the next year.

A Eurobarometer poll measuring public attitudes across all 27 EU states shows that 82 per cent of people think EU membership has benefited the country, while 73 per cent of people think that membership is a "good thing".

The results correspond to a similar snap poll undertaken just days after the Irish public rejected the Lisbon Treaty.

Only in the Netherlands is there stronger support for the EU, with three-quarters of Dutch people saying that EU membership is a "good thing".

Just 29 per cent of Latvians and 30 per cent of British people say they approve of their country's membership of the EU.

The results also show that Irish people trust the EU and its institutions more than they trust their own government and parliament. Some 53 per cent of Irish people say they do not tend to trust the Government, while 46 per cent say they do not tend to trust the Dáil.

This is an improvement on the results of a similar survey of attitudes carried out last autumn when the results were 32 per cent and 33 per cent respectively. In contrast, 62 per cent of Irish people tend to trust the EU, a rise of 7 per cent.

The European Commission is trusted by 54 per cent of people while 62 per cent of respondents say they trust the European Parliament.Sixty-five per cent of people say the EU conjures up a positive image - the highest result in all EU states. The Eurobarometer survey, which interviewed 1,004 Irish people and 30,000 European citizens overall, reflects growing unease in Ireland about the country's economic prospects.

Two-thirds of people say they think the employment situation will get worse th
7

Hilary,

Edinburgh 25/06/2008 12:01:00
"In the event, the decision of the court is itself clear. We have found nothing in the claimant's case to cast doubt on the lawfulness of ratifying the Lisbon Treaty without a referendum."
8

Alan B,

25/06/2008 12:21:13
#Steve_HMFC

"referena are a bad way of doing politics."

would totally disagree. I think referendum are good. I would like the uk to adopt the US approach so that referendum questions can attached to elections.

Representative democracy is failing.

Agree with u regarding the media. But that is another issue.

In specific regard to this treaty. Part of the problem is it is not clear what it is about. Politicians on both sides are lying. The pros say in the uk say it is just about making the an expanded eu when it is clearly more than that.

I agree with u a referendum in each country with the whole thing collapsing is a bad way to approach an eu treaty. The uk should have an in or out referendum.

It would probably be best to have a eu wide referendum and stop individual country vetoes.

I am pro eu but i do think it is getting alot of things wrong in its approach. The constitutional treaty was completely stupid. Making it a constitution will alienate the uk for a start, and the timing meant that it was ripe for a backlash becuase of new member states.

The single market, common currency (countries should not be forsed to join), common evironmental approach, free movement of people (some transition for new poorer countries, maybe having a 90% of average economic wealth threshold), having an underpinning of human rights. I would also like a common foreign policy and a quick response peacing keeping cooperation.

However the eu is overstepping the mark in too many areas. It needs to pulled decision making were it is beneficial to have such an approach and get out of some of the silly irrelevant stuff.

I would start with countries paying for their own agriculure subsidies and then moving to a protected free market in agriculture within the EU.

The biggest problem with the eu is the push by those of the left to harmonise social chapter regulations and tax. They are really trying to prevent the electrate chosing rightish economic policies in
9

Alan B,

25/06/2008 12:23:21
#Hilary

Do not know what u are trying to argue.

The Irish i think voted no because this is simply a bad treaty. It is not very comprehensible. It also could infringe into areas it should not.
10

Jock MacTamson 2,

Highlands 25/06/2008 12:31:37
EU trading is a good thing for individual nations and I think most agree with the Economic benefits.

But enhancing the powers of the EU is a bad idea. In fact any idea that involves more politicians being involved is a bad and always expensive idea.

I want less government. Not more. Now they will just spend all their time jumping around europe passing paperwork and legislation for the sake of it.
11

Hilary,

Edinburgh 25/06/2008 12:33:47
Alan B:

Be specific, if no-one else can.

What actually IS bad about the Treaty? Chapter and verse?

Where does it infringe?

You say above that countries should not be forced into the Euro. But none of them are. It's a national choice, no-one else's, and teh Treaty, for instance, makes that explicitly clear.
12

Alan B,

25/06/2008 12:47:14
#Hilary

Firstly i am pro-eu. I would like us to join the euro so i am not coming from this from an anti eu point of view.

"should not be forced into the Euro"
My understanding is countries are oblidged to join. ie the eastern european countries are meant to join as part of their accession agreement. The UK had to fight for an opt out.

As i say i am pro euro and would have scotland join. But just think the eu should relax abit in its approach.

"Where does it infringe?"

The EU infringes in a few areas. And involves itself in areas i do not think it should.

eg
1) harmonisation of VAT in certain areas
a)the uk chose under lamont as chancellor to impose vat on fuel. under the eu harmonisation of vat countries that imposed this tax could not subsequently remove it. ie the uk was not forced to put vat on fuel but having done so could not remove it.

While i understand harmonisation on VAT in certain areas domestic fuel i believe is wrong.

There is simply no reason for it. U cannot move ur physically house to another country and hence there is no distortion of the single market.

b)vat on food. again the uk does not have to impose vat on food but if a single government does it cannot remove that. Again food does not and will not distort the single market. And that is the reason for var harmonisation.

2)move to metric. it is completely irrelevent and created bad feeling amongst some for no reason. On the whole it did not bother me but seems completely silly. The only area i felt sad for was the removal of getting serviced a gill in a pub.

There is not reason for this move.

3)education
a)i do not believe the eu should pay for education. i myself did an eu funded course back in the early 90s and just think education should be the remit of the national government.
b)the eu rules mean that a country has to pay for the students of another member country studying in that country. that is bonkers.

With regard to scotland, we have got rid
13

Alan B,

25/06/2008 12:55:00
#Hilary

"What actually IS bad about the Treaty? Chapter and verse?"

- part of the problem is this treaty is very difficult to comprehend.

I read the constitutional treaty and while it was easy to understand it was badly written.

It also overstepped the mark by having things like eu national anthems etc.

I have no problem with majority voting in areas of eu competance, but do not want majority voting to be used to extend eu competence.

We have seen history of that when the uk opted out the social chapter. But ended up being forced by health and safety to adopt working hour directives which were really not intended for that purpose.

There is scope for the charter of fundamental rights to do the same. The uk written opt outs of part of it. but already lawyers are saying it may not be worth the paper it is written on.

I am not pro the increase in powers for the eu of judicial matters. I am all for co-operation. The eu police force from the constitution was dropped by that is the intent.
14

Alan B,

25/06/2008 12:58:32
#Hilary

got cut of in #13.

With regard to scotland, we have got rid of tution fees. However if we became independent we would be liable to pay for english student studying in scotland. That is simply unaffordable potentially.

The eu policy is simply a back door way of forcing countries to adopt tution fees.

If a country wants tution fees fair enough. If another does not fine. But lets not bring in policies that undermine the decision taken by the elected representatives in these countries.
15

,

25/06/2008 13:47:10
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
16

elizabeth the first ,

25/06/2008 14:01:16
Ireland has the right idea,NO,not now not ever!
17

Hilary,

Edinburgh 25/06/2008 14:10:58
Ok, 107 first...Read the UK High Court judgement:

32. There are undoubted differences between the two treaties. Unlike the Constitutional Treaty, the Lisbon Treaty does not purport, either by its title or in its terms, to lay down a constitution for Europe. Unlike the Constitutional Treaty, it does not repeal the existing treaties and replace them by a single text, but proceeds by way of amendment of the existing treaties; and it leaves in place the existing entities and institutions (save that the European Community is subsumed into the European Union) rather than replacing them with a new legal entity. We see no basis for dismissing such differences as obviously immaterial even if they are treated as differences of form rather than of substance.
18

Hilary,

Edinburgh 25/06/2008 14:26:33
Now Alan B:

The Euro - your "understanding" is wrong. No new countries sought to negotiate an opt-out as part of accession. Quite the opposite, they are queuing for EMU entry.
But the Treaty makes crystal clear in Protocol 15 that "the UK shall not be obliged or committed to adopting the Euro".

There is no such thing as VAT harmonisation - look at books and childrens' clothes across the EU. Minimum levels of sales tax are another thing - and that what business means when it talks about a level playing field.

Metric - a decision of the UK prior to EU accession and explicitly made clear by the EC that it was the UK's business. But again, double labelling for sale outside the UK is inevitable if you want to be able to buy and sell on a level basis.

Education - there is NO EU competence for higher education. There is funding for student mobility - Erasmus and the like - but no central funding for education per se.
Free movement means nothing if one set of students can't get the same dispensations to study as another - that's what a common market is.

Social - it was HMG's decision to end the Social Chapter opt-out, not the EU's.

Equally, on Justice, it was the UK that had negotiatated an opt-out on the Charter and other Justice measures in the Lisbon Treaty - which you oppose?

As it is, their is a clear Protocol on all these UK opt-outs, and the Charter itself says that it creates no new legal rights or obligations.

Next?






19

JoeMiddleton,

Edinburgh 25/06/2008 15:16:33
A pity. Luckily Ireland has already blown the proposed treaty out of the water but a referendum should have been held nonetheless.
20

Alan B,

25/06/2008 15:49:05
#Hilary

U are completely misunderstanding my point and as u are looking about specific uk opt outs.

My understanding of the euro is not wrong. U basically say that yourself, when you talk about no country having sought an opt out. I am also not talking about the UK specifically.

There is an obligation for countries to join the euro. The UK fought for an opt out. It was not exactly welcomed.

My point is the eu should be relaxed about countries chosing to join the euro or not.

Education - again u have not address the 2 issues i posted.

The EU do fund educational programs. I do not believe it should.

"Free movement means nothing if one set of students can't get the same dispensations to study as another - that's what a common market is."
What has that to do with what i was talking about.

I have no problem with students from one country studying in another and think it should be encouraged. What i am saying it is stupid for country A to pick up the tab for a student from country B.

I gave a practice example of why it would not work. All it will lead to is countries introducing if they have not tution fees.

That has nothing to do with freedom of movement of people or the common market.

Metric - again u are missing my point. I see no reason for pubs to have to serve the same measure throughout the eu. I am happy with a pint in scotland and the differing sizes in germany or belgium. I see not reason to standardise this sort of thing.

The abolishin of the GILL to milli litres only happend a few yrs ago and was not part of accession in the mid 70s.

My point is while i can understand it for international trade is silly to try to standardise for no good reason.

As we have seen it alienates certain groups. And makes it harder for those of us who strongly believe in the eu to defend it.

"Social - it was HMG's decision to end the Social Chapter opt-out, not the EU's.

Equally, on Justice, it was the UK that had negotiatated a
21

Alan B,

25/06/2008 15:49:33
cont...

Equally, on Justice, it was the UK that had negotiatated an opt-out on the Charter and other Justice measures in the Lisbon Treaty "

On both of those u again misunderstand.

One u have ignored how the health and safety was used to wrong impose social chapter regulations on the uk.

Also that the uk may have an opt out is irrelevent to my argument.

If the uk elected another government could they simply withdraw from the social chapter? No. That is where i am coming from.

I believe in the EU but it should not be getting itself involved in areas like social chapters and Justice.

If they are going to involve itself in these areas countries should be free to opt in and out at will.

ie there should core parts to the EU and clear optional parts.
22

Allan(handofgod137),

25/06/2008 15:51:16
Hilary, we do have a written constitution (or at least England does), it's called the Magna Carta.
Tyhe courts decision is another nail in the coffin of democracy.
23

Allan(handofgod137),

25/06/2008 15:53:36
#22 Alan, as no British government is obliged to abide by dictats of previous governments, we could and should withdraw from the social chapter.
24

Alan B,

25/06/2008 16:00:31
#Hilary

" the Charter itself says that it creates no new legal rights or obligations."

It puts alot more things to majority vote meaning that it can extend it competency over countries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Lisbon#Bullet_point_summary

From this site it says the lisbon treaty covers areas such as

culture
tourism
education, youth, sport and vocational training

To my mind the EU should not involve itself in any of these things.

I want to EU to cover the big areas.


while this site appears anti eu it does post some interesting quotes.

Belgian Foreign Minister Karel de Gucht said: “The aim of the Constitutional Treaty was to be more readable; the aim of this [Lisbon] treaty is to be unreadable… The Constitution aimed to be clear, whereas this treaty had to be unclear. It is a success.”

French President Nicolas Sarkozy said: “There will be no treaty at all if we had a referendum in France.”


French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner threatened Irish voters if they failed to approve the treaty: “The first victims would be the Irish. They have benefited more than others,” he warned.


It is these attitudes that seem to prevail that lead u to question the ethics of those driving the process.

25

Alan B,

25/06/2008 16:04:09
#Hilary

"There is no such thing as VAT harmonisation"

There is and it was part of the single market. Certain goods should have vat levied between 5-10% others 15-20%.

That was part of the 1985 single market introduce in Jan 1993.

This shows u are wrong about VAT harmonisation.

http://www.euractiv.com/en/sustainability/eu-consider-vat-cuts-green-goods/article-171000

eg
"According to him, products that could benefit from a reduced VAT rate of 5%, rather than the current minimum of 15%, include cars with reduced CO2 emission, insulation materials, efficient light bulbs and energy-efficient domestic appliances. "

You have ignored my issue that the uk cannot remove the vat on fuel now it is imposed. The UK if it levied vat on food could not then remove it.
26

Alan B,

25/06/2008 16:05:53
#Hilary

Take another example on tax. Corporation tax. Ireland was ordered by the EU to have one corporation tax. It previously had a corporation tax for manufactured goods and another for services.

No saying this is right or wrong but, could see a very good argument for lower manufacturing corporation tax.
27

Alan B,

25/06/2008 16:09:05
#Hilary

Another link to show u are wrong about VAT and the EU.

http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/taxation/vat/how_vat_works/rates/index_en.htm
28

Alan B,

25/06/2008 16:10:03
#Hilary

VAT and the EU

"The basic rules are simple:

Supplies of goods and services subject to VAT are normally subject to a standard rate of at least 15%;
Member States may apply one or two reduced rates of not less than 5% to goods and services enumerated in a restricted list;
They may also, under certain conditions, apply a reduced rate to certain labour intensive services (annex IV).
These simple rules are however complicated by a multitude of derogations granted to certain Member States, in some instances a majority of Member States. These derogations were granted during the negotiations preceding the adoption of the VAT rates Directive of 1992 and in the Acts of Accession to the European Union. Overall, such derogations prevent a coherent system of VAT rates in the EU from being applied. "

http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/taxation/vat/how_vat_works/rates/index_en.htm
29

Alan B,

25/06/2008 16:13:19
#24 Allan

My understanding is now that Blair decided to opt into the social chapter the UK cannot simply opt out.

ie we have signed the treaty.

Yes we could withdraw from the EU or we could try to renegotiate another opt out. But i do not think we could simply opt out without negotation and agreement.
30

Otis Boone,

Sacramento 25/06/2008 19:20:29
I am really astonished that Labour, the party of the people, is refusing to let the people vote on law that affects the people immensely.

Vote them all out. Its time to get rid of the elitist MPs who seem to forget that they work for you, the British public.
31

beckypumps1,

Fife 25/06/2008 19:55:44
Maybe they are acting in good faith and just dont understand their mandate.
32

yoric,

25/06/2008 23:14:28
The Government critisises Mugabe and Zimbabwe over its lack of Democracy.
The same British Government then critisises the Irish for voting the wrong way, and says it will ratify the treaty anyway.

Democracy has been replaced with hypocracy.
Welcome to the EU.

Just remember it won't matter whether Scotland gets full Devolution or not, because you will be ruled from Brussels.
33

Ingenieur,

Bridport 26/06/2008 00:41:32
It is really very simple; By the device of a Constitution disguised as a Treaty the EU commissioners, seek MORE authority for themselves with LESS accountability.

When this is expressed in plain language, as it was in the constitution, people will always vote NO.

No-one would allow them MORE authority, when they have so abused the authority they already have. And no-one should allow them to be LESS accountable, while they remain unconcerned that the auditors are refusing to approve their accounts, while fraud is endemic, and only the whistle-blowers get sacked.

God bless the Irish, the French, the Dutch, and God bless Stuart Wheeler - may his campaign succeed.

Referendum Now !

Ingenieur.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.